Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 April 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small

The COVID-19 pandemic has created profound disruptions in our economy and society.  Due to the challenges of this pandemic, most universities have decided to move from face-to-face classes to online teaching (more accurately defined as emergency remote teaching and learning) so as to complete the 2020 academic year, and to prevent the spread of the virus.

Online learning vs emergency teaching and learning
Online learning is the result of careful instructional design and planning, using a systematic model for design and development.  With remote emergency teaching and learning, this careful design process is absent.  Careful planning for online learning includes not just identifying the content to be covered, but also how to support the type of interactions that are important to the learning process.  Planning, preparation, and development time for a fully online university course typically takes six to nine months before the course is delivered.

Emergency teaching and learning is a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternative delivery mode due to crisis conditions.  Hence, one cannot equate emergency remote teaching and learning with online learning, nor should one compare emergency remote teaching and learning with face-to-face teaching. What is crucial is the quality of the mode of delivery, and although assessment methodologies will differ between face-to-face teaching and remote teaching and learning, the quality of the learning outcomes should be comparable.

Funding to universities 
The financial model used in a South African (residential) university consists of three main income sources: (i) the state or government through a subsidy (the so-called ‘block grant’), (ii) tuition fees, and (iii) third-stream income (which is mainly a cost-recovery component from contract research, donations, and interest on university investments). The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) contributes to the tuition fees through a Department of Higher Education, Science and Innovation Bursary Scheme, providing fully subsidised free higher education and training for poor and working-class South Africans (recipients will typically be students from households with a combined income less than R350 k per annum).  

The negative impact of COVID-19 on the income drivers of the university can, and probably will, be severe.  Although the subsidy from the state or government can be ‘protected’ for a cycle of two to three years through the National Treasury, the pressure on income derived from tuition fees (that component which is not funded through NSFAS) will be increasing, as households would have been affected by the nationwide lockdown and with the economy in deep recession, a significant number of jobs would have been lost. The economic downturn, due to both COVID19 and a sovereign downgrade by all rating agencies, has already negatively impacted local financial markets as well as the global economy. The multiplier effect of this would be that the value of investments and endowments decreases (at the time of writing the JSE was still 20% down compared to the previous year), and philanthropic organisations and foundations will most probably reduce or even terminate ‘givings’ to universities.

Industry, private sector, and commerce will re-assess their funding to universities, whether for research or bursary support.  Overall, it is possible that the income sources for universities can be affected negatively in the short term, but it will definitely have longer-term implications on the financial sustainability of universities.  In this regard, it would be important for universities to perform scenario planning on the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the financial position of the university, and to adjust their strategic plans accordingly.

By Prof Francis Petersen is Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.
 

News Archive

Conference on religion and reconciliation
2011-07-25

 

At the conference were, from the left, front: Dr Frank Chikane, President of AFM International; Dr Mathole Motshekga, Chief Whip of the ANC; at the back: Rev. Maniraj Sukdaven, Head of our Department of Religion Studies; and Dr Alan Boesak, connected to our International Institute for Studies in Race, Reconciliation and Social Justice, as well as a minister in the United Reformed Church.

In recent times, reconciliation has mainly been politically driven, Dr Alan Boesak stated during a conference on religion and reconciliation. He was one of a number of prominent academic leaders from various religions who participated in the conference: Exploring religious understanding for reconciliation.The conference was presented by our Faculty of Theology and the International Institute for Studies in Race, Reconciliation and Social Justice at our university this week.

According to Dr Boesak, a theologian connected to our International Institute for Studies in Race, Reconciliation and Social Justice, reconciliation means much more than simply former enemies no longer attacking or killing one another; they also have co-exist with a positive attitude towards one another.
 
Speakers from, amongst others, the Christian, Jewish, Baha’i, Rastafarian, Islam and Buddhist religious communities shared their views on reconciliation with one another.Most of these speakers referred to the special value of humankind in each religion. A person’s life has a supernatural dimension, which ought to play a major role in the way in which people treat one another.
 
Dr Frank Chikane, President of AFM International, as well as a speaker at the event, stated that the religious community should and had to be more active in discussions about reconciliation.“If religious leaders do not talk about current issues, all kinds of voices with distorted perspectives will be heard instead,” Dr Chikane added.
 
Reconciliation can only truly take place if the contribution of each group in society is taken seriously. Apart from the high premium placed on rights in society, duties that have to be fulfilled should also be emphasised. Bishop Malusi Mpumlwana from the Ethiopian Episcopal Church is of the opinion that this sense of duty should be established in people’s frame of mind. Adv. Antony Osler pointed out from a Buddhist perspective how important it was to deal with reconciliation by living up to its principles.
 
Rev. Maniraj Sukdaven, Head of our Department of Religion Studies, is very satisfied with the high quality of the contributions during the conference.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept